Pulitzer Prize winner: illegal immigrant

[WildCat]

I'm of the opinion that one of the biggest problems with immigration is that we don't allow more of it legally.

I know, with the booming economy and full employment and wages going through the roof we could really use more workers to take all those open jobs!

What country do you live in?

 

[sadhatter]

Yes, but I don't accept that this is an exact line.

The fact remains someone who didn't stand in line ( file the proper paperwork, wait the appropriate times, etc.) , is getting ahead of someone who has.

To make another analogy.

Your in college, striving to get your degree in some field or another. Your working hard, doing all the appropriate steps, and some guy comes in and gets one without doing any of it.

Are you effected negatively? Why should you have to work for it when someone else didn't?

Heck to make the analogy more proper...

Your in college working for your degree, they have a big ceremony for a student caught cheating, go on about how awesome it is that he got great grades, all the while acknowledging he got them by cheating. And give him a degree sans having to do the real work.

How exactly would you feel, knowing that someone who cheated gets in, but you have to work for it?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Why should illegal immigration be the one area where open, notorious violation of the law doesn't get you harsh consequences?

I don't think it is, as a matter of fact. In fact, I don't think there is any special or different practice wrt to immigration prosecutions and fame relative to any other area of law.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Try using that excuse in traffic court next time.

It routinely is, in a way. The practice of plea bargaining traffic violations to non-points violations goes on all the time, and it's pretty much based on the notion that it can be done when it's not a big deal. (If you have a repeat offender, or a case where speeding was involved in other criminal activity, you'll find prosecutors unwilling to cut a non-points deal.)

I once had a speeding ticket, and I knew that I couldn't make the court date even though it was 2 months away, because I had a contract obligation for that exact time. I tried to get them to let me pay it in advance or schedule for the prior or subsequent court date, and the municipality would have none of it. They said all I could do is wait until the court date came and went, then go turn myself in as a fugitive (for failure to appear) and pay the fines then. So I went the day after the court date, and was told that I wasn't yet in the system as a fugitive, but it could happen any time, and I risked being arrested at any moment, even though I was there to turn myself in. I finally raised my voice at the clerk, who caught a judge at his lunch break in the cafeteria, who dismissed all charges against me--no points, no fine, no court costs. . .nothing. Either it just didn't matter enough to warrant the effort, or the judge figured I'd suffered enough. The point is, this kind of discretion is used all the time in traffic court.

 

[TraneWreck]

That's an interesting argument. I think what you means is that legal immigration quotas are not directly effected by the number of illegal immigrants.

Certainly if illegals are having an effect on the labor force and the economy, then a complete absence of illegals would result in a higher capacity to accept legals, at least in the medium/long term. Right?

But the bottom line is this... if we're not going to enforce the line, why should anyone respect the line? And if nobody respects the line, why have a line?

The academic studies on this subject unanimously agree that illegal immigration has a net positive effect on the economy. Interestingly, the only group of native-born citizens that suffer negative economic effects from illegal immigration are high school dropouts.

If that's your metric, then illegals improving the economy are likely to increase the quotas, though that's not how they're determined.

Look, I'm obviously leaning towards the stance of doing away with it completely, but Vargas, specifically, is a clear case of someone we should want in the country, no matter how he got here.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

That's what immigration judges are for. Every alien, legal or illegal, has recourse to the Bureau of Immigration Affairs and the Administrative Appeals Office. From there, they can go to the United States District Court, and all the way up to SCOTUS, if their lawyer is good enough. Is there any reason you think this guy (Vargas?) should be allowed to stay in this country without entering this process?

Sure, if federal authorities think it's a waste of time and resources to go after a guy who is definitely a net asset to our society. That's their call, just as discretion in prosecution is available in all other kinds of criminal law enforcement.

In fact, I think they should simply offer him amnesty or something to convert his status to a legal one, and be done with it.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I'm not talking about catching every single offender, but am I talking about going after more or less every single offender we can.

Why? That seems to me a poorly thought out use of our limited resources.

And second, wrt to immigration, are you contesting the fact I've raised several times that current policy focussing on violent criminal illegal immigrants has resulted in record numbers of enforcements (including removals)?

Also, going after every single illegal immigrant we can would confound other interests that inform the federal policy (for examples, economic concerns, foreign relations concerns, and humanitarian concerns). It would certainly be a shift away from the policy of focussing primarily on violent criminal illegal aliens, and might possibly result in a missed opportunity to reduce violent crime.

Again, with limited resources and even sometimes conflicting goals, these kind of enforcement policy decisions are all about the trade-offs involved.

By analogy, would it be worth going after every speeder we could if it snarled up traffic, caused huge court delays, resulted in lots of dismissed cases, etc.?

 

[pipelineaudio]

Or do you suppose the biggest problem our country faces is the presences of non-violent (and often non-criminal) illegal aliens such that we should raise the deficit limit to infinity and devote truly unlimited resources to deporting absolutely every single illegal immigrant?

False dichotomy really. The amount of violence and desparation illegal immigration causes, especially among our poorest citizens is something you need to consider and understand before making such a judgement. If we would have concentrated enforcement on people illegally hiring illegals for working class and higher jobs way early on, like immediately after Operation gatekeeper, this might not have been a problem so much. At this point though, even the honest businessman has to hire illegally or his costs will be several times higher than his nearest competitors. The whole thing is screwed from top to bottom at this point and the poor suffer the worst of it

 

[mumblethrax]

You brought up the point, which is why it's relevant. And yes, the CBO assumes no new illegal immigrants.

I didn't say anything about new immigrants. And I'm still not sure why it's relevant, since new immigrants is a much larger class than immigrant minors who have attended college or served in the military, etc.

But can you substantiate the claim that the CBO "assumes no new illegal immigrants" in it's report on the DREAM Act? Can you even tell me what that means?

Obvously you don;t get it, because otherwise you wouldn't have made such a ridiculous analogy.

Can you tell me why you feel that the analogy is ridiculous?

This doesn't even make sense.

It means that I'm unclear on why you think it's a good idea to treat people in Vargas' situation as a bargaining chip to achieve some other, largely unrelated political end. It's particularly strange, given that you're trying to engage in horsetrading without noticing that you don't own any horses.

Try using that excuse in traffic court next time.

I'm not in Vargas' position, and you're fundamentally failing to grasp the distinction between legal obligation (which is tautological) and moral obligation to the law.

Oh please, not this mindless analogy again.

Immigration laws have squat to do with a free market.

A less charitable correspondent might assume here that you're responding only to the first sentence of that post and ignoring the context in some kind of attempt to win an argument or satisfy some grudge, rather than engage in genuine inquiry.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

False dichotomy really. The amount of violence and desparation illegal immigration causes, especially among our poorest citizens is something you need to consider and understand before making such a judgement. If we would have concentrated enforcement on people illegally hiring illegals for working class and higher jobs way early on, like immediately after Operation gatekeeper, this might not have been a problem so much.

No. I disagree. In determining the best enforcement policy, we should try to get the most bang for our buck. Focusing on enforcement of people hiring illegals would have to come at the cost of focussing on violent criminal illegal aliens.

Unless, of course, you'd like the federal government to devote literally unlimited resources to the enforcement of immigration laws. Otherwise, it's a trade off.

As TraneWrack points out, the science says the net effect of illegal immigration is positive, contrary to all the scapegoating. My point, though, is that the federal government's enforcement policy balances a number of issues some of which are at odds with what it would take to deport the maximum number of illegals. (Though again, as I've pointed out, current policy has achieved just that: the most removals we've ever achieved historically.)

 

[mumblethrax]

No moral obligation to obey the law? Where does it end? What laws should anyone have no moral obligation to obey? Or is there no moral obligation to obey any law?

It's beyond the scope of the thread, but I hinted at it earlier. Most people who believe that we have a moral obligation to obey the law believe that obligation obtains through some legitimizing process, like the ability to participate in that process. This is how civil disobedience in the Jim Crow South can be defended without giving up on political obligation altogether.

More here.

To put it another way, many conservatives and libertarians don't generally support civil disobedience, or only support it under very narrow circumstances. Work within the system to change it; in the meantime, obey the law.

That's been my impression, but I'm unclear on why those people feel entitled to get within 50 feet of the word 'liberty'. Rule of law does not imply blind obedience, and some people don't have adequate access to the system. An authoritarian state can easily mute all objections from these 'libertarians'.

 

[AvalonXQ]

That's been my impression, but I'm unclear on why those people feel entitled to get within 50 feet of the word 'liberty'.

Because "liberty" doesn't imply "disobey any law you disagree with". We call that "anarchy", and libertarians are different from anarchists.

I don't see how you can honestly think that a person has to support civil disobedience in all circumstances, ever to be considered a proponent of personal liberty.

 

[SezMe]

As TraneWrack points out ...

Funny typo.

 

[SezMe]

... Social liberalism and fiscal conservatism both lead us to supporting reform in the direction of liberalized immigration and naturalization, especially in the narrow case of immigrant minors.

Incorrect. In my view neither perspective leads to liberalized immigration. And since I'm in both categories, my existence negates your assertion.

 

[mumblethrax]

Because "liberty" doesn't imply "disobey any law you disagree with".

But it does imply "disobey at least some imaginable laws." It's fundamentally incompatible with robotic obedience to the law.

 

[pipelineaudio]

No. I disagree. In determining the best enforcement policy, we should try to get the most bang for our buck. Focusing on enforcement of people hiring illegals would have to come at the cost of focussing on violent criminal illegal aliens

Bang for the buck would be making an example out of a few high profile employers.

I see it argued all over the JREF that you can never take out terrorism by taking out one terrorist at a time. I also don't believe you will make much of an impact on violent crime by taking out one criminal at a time.

Destroying the climate that leads to so much violence and property crime and destroys the welfare and infrastructure of an entire area, one underlying cause at a time can be done, should be done by law, must be done by law

Its time to remove the political protectionism these employers at the very top enjoy, and if that doesn't send a message to those lower down, then it wouldn't be too hard to nail them too.

Right now, every attempt to even verify, as required by law, employment records is met with large scale protest and blockage by politicians

We've got a climate of selective enforcement, nobody knows what the real rules are, and its utter chaos and a toxic environment for any honest businessman who wants to create jobs

 

[mumblethrax]

In my view neither perspective leads to liberalized immigration.And since I'm in both categories, my existence negates your assertion.

Sure. There's nothing more to crafting a coherent ideology than having views, after all.

 

[AvalonXQ]

But it does imply "disobey at least some imaginable laws." It's fundamentally incompatible with robotic obedience to the law.

Great, so we've arrived at a middle ground.

What you've failed to show is why this middle ground needs to include a refusal to apply for a visa -- or why anyone who thinks it doesn't, hates liberty.

 

[WildCat]

I didn't say anything about new immigrants. And I'm still not sure why it's relevant, since new immigrants is a much larger class than immigrant minors who have attended college or served in the military, etc.

But can you substantiate the claim that the CBO "assumes no new illegal immigrants" in it's report on the DREAM Act? Can you even tell me what that means?

Do you know how the CBO operates? It only analyzes such things in a vacuum. It certainly didn't consider how encouraging even more illegal aliens affects the numbers, nor the effect of depressed wages among legal low-skilled workers.

Can you tell me why you feel that the analogy is ridiculous?

Because gay marriage has absolutely no relationship with beastiality.

It means that I'm unclear on why you think it's a good idea to treat people in Vargas' situation as a bargaining chip to achieve some other, largely unrelated political end. It's particularly strange, given that you're trying to engage in horsetrading without noticing that you don't own any horses.

Because the overwhelming majority of illegal aliens compete with existing legal workers for low-skilled jobs, which drives down wages and benefits and contributes to the US having a permanent underclass that persists for generations. We don't need to import workers for the sole reason that they'll work for less than domestic low-skilled workers. I'd be all for allowing more low-skilled immigrants if we had an actual labor shortage, but we don't.

I'm not in Vargas' position, and you're fundamentally failing to grasp the distinction between legal obligation (which is tautological) and moral obligation to the law.

'Sure I was doing 95 in a school zone, but I didn't actually hit any children, what's the harm".

A less charitable correspondent might assume here that you're responding only to the first sentence of that post and ignoring the context in some kind of attempt to win an argument or satisfy some grudge, rather than engage in genuine inquiry.

It sounds to me like you don't want any immigration restrictions whatsoever.

 

[SezMe]

Sure. There's nothing more to crafting a coherent ideology than having views, after all.